THE STEPPE LANDS

AND THE WORLD BEYOND THEM

Studies in honor of Victor Spinei on his 70th birthday
 Suported by grant CNCSIS PN II-RU 343/2010

Redactor: Dana Lungu

Cover: Manuela Oboroceanu
Editorial assistant: Anda-Elena Maleon

Front cover illustration: “Portolan chart by Angelino Dulcert (1339)”, Sea

Charts of the Early Explorers, 13th to 17th Century, ed. Michel Mollat du
Jourdin, Monique de La Ronciére, Marie-Madeleine Azard, Isabelle
Raynaud-Nguyen, Marie-Antoinette Vannereau, Fribourg, Thames and
Hudson, 1984, pl. no. 7.

ISBN 978-973-703-933-0

© Editura Universit ii „Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, 2013

700109 – Ia i, Str. Pinului, nr. 1 A, tel./fax: (0232)314947
http://www.editura.uaic.ro e-mail: editura@uaic.ro
 THE STEPPE LANDS
AND THE WORLD BEYOND THEM
Studies in honor of Victor Spinei
on his 70th birthday

editors
Florin Curta, Bogdan-Petru Maleon

EDITURA UNIVERSIT II „ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZA”

IA I – 2013
Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Na ionale a României
The Steppe Lands and the World Beyond Them : Studies in
Honor of Victor Spinei on his 70th Birthday / ed. by Florin Curta
and Bogdan-Petru Maleon - Ia i :
Editura Universit ii “Al. I. Cuza”, 2013
Bibliogr.
ISBN 978-973-703-933-0
I. Curta, Florin (ed.)
II. Maleon, Bogdan-Petru (ed.)
94(498) Spinei,V.
929 Spinei,V.
 CONTENTS

Victor Spinei and the research on the Eurasian steppe lands ............................. 9
Victor Spinei’s opus: a complete list of works .................................................. 13

Early nomads

Michel Kazanski, The land of the antes according to Jordanes and

Procopius ....................................................................................................... 35
Peter Golden, Some notes on the Avars and Rouran ........................................ 43
Li Jinxiu, A study of the Xiyu Tuji ................................................... 67
István Zimonyi, The chapter of the Jayh n – tradition on the Pechenegs ....... 99
Adrian Ioni , Observa ii asupra mormintelor cu depunere de cai sau
p r i de cai în spa iul cuprins între Dun rea de Jos, Carpa i i Nistru,
în secolele X-XIII ......................................................................................... 115
Mykola Melnyk, On the issue of the authenticity of the names of
Pecheneg rulers in the Nikonian chronicle .................................................. 151

Nomads in the Balkans and in Central Europe

Aleksander Paro ,“Facta est christiana lex, in pessimo et crudelissimo

populo.” Bruno of Querfurt among the Pechenegs ...................................... 161
Marek Meško, Pecheneg groups in the Balkans (ca. 1053-1091)
according to the Byzantine sources ........................................................... 179
Alexandru Magearu, The Pechenegs in the Byzantine army ........................... 207
Jonathan Shepard, Mingling with northern barbarians:advantages and
perils ............................................................................................................ 219
Aleksand r Nikolov, “Ethnos skythikon”: the Uzes in the Balkans
(facts and interpretations) ........................................................................... 235
Uwe Fiedler, Zur Suche nach dem archäologischen Niederschlag von
Petschenegen, Uzen und Kumanen in den Gebieten südlich der unteren
Donau .......................................................................................................... 249
Ioto Valeriev, New Byzantine, tenth-to eleventh-century lead seals from
Bulgaria ....................................................................................................... 287
Francesco dall' Aglio, The interaction between nomadic and sedentary
peoples on the Lower Danube: the Cumans and the “Second Bulgarian
Empire” ....................................................................................................... 299

The Mongols and the aftermath of the Mongol invasion of 1241

Chris Atwood, The Uyghur stone: archaeological revelations

in the Mongol Empire .................................................................................. 315
Antti Ruotsala, Roger Bacon and the imperial Mongols of the thirteenth
century ......................................................................................................... 345
Christian Gastgeber, John of Plano Carpini and William Rubruck. Re-
reading their treatises about the Mongols from a sociolinguistic point
of view .......................................................................................................... 355
Charles Halperin, “No one knew who they were”:Rus’ interaction with
the Mongols ................................................................................................. 377
Georgi Atanasov, Le maître ( – dominus) de Dr st r Terter et
le beg tatar Kutlu-Buga pendant les années 70 - 80 du XIV siècle ............. 389
Alexander Rubel, Alexander kam nur bis zur chinesischen Mauer. Der
Alexanderroman und seine Reise nach Asien im Mittelater ........................ 399

Medieval archaeology within and outside the steppe lands

Silviu O a, Cercei decora i cu muluri de granule pe pandantiv

(secolele XII-XIV) ........................................................................................ 409
Dumitru eicu, The beginnings of the church architecture in the
medieval Banat: rotundas ............................................................................ 437
Ionel Cândea, Some remarks on new ornamental disks, stove tiles, and
tripods from the medieval town of Br ila (14th-16th centuries) .................... 455
Lia B trîna, Adrian B trîna, Gheorghe Sion, Re edin a feudal de la
Giule ti (com. Boroaia) .................................. ..............................................469

Early urban life between steppe empires and Byzantium

Virgil Ciocîltan, Cluj i Gala i: sugestii etimologice ...................................... 523

Lauren iu R dvan, Contribu ii la istoria unui vechi ora al
Moldovei:Bârlad .......................................................................................... 543
Liviu Pilat, Ia ii i drumul comercial moldovenesc ......................................... 563
Emil Lupu, Drum, ora i hotar între ara Moldovei i ara
Româneasc ................................................................................................. 569
Sergiu Mustea , Chi in ul i arheologia urban .......................................... 599

The world outside the steppe lands during the Middle Ages
and the early modern period

Alexandru-Florin Platon, Représentation et politique : l’hypostase

corporelle de l’état dans l’Empire Byzantin ............................................... 617
Warren Treadgold, The lost Secret History of Nicetas the Paphlagonian ...... 645
Ovidiu Cristea, Un gest al lui Manuel I Comnenul la Zemun (1165) ............. 677
Alexandru Simon, Walachians, Arpadians, and Assenids: the implications
of a lost charter ............................................................................................. 689
Matei Cazacu, Marche frontalière ou état dans l’état? l’Olténie aux
XIVe-XVe siècles ........................................................................................... 697
Arno Mentzel-Reuters, Der Kreuzzug des Deutschen Ordens zum Dnjestr
(1497). Protokoll einer Katastrophe ............................................................ 743
Ioan-Aurel Pop, Un text latin din 1531, despre raporturile moldo-polone, de la
arhivele de stat din Milano .............................................................................. 761
Iurie Stamati, Les Slaves et la genèse des Roumains et de leurs états
selon la tradition historiographique russe, de la chronique
Voskresenskaia à Lev Berg ......................................................................... 779
Abbreviations .................................................................................................. 795
 THE INTERACTION BETWEEN NOMADIC AND
SEDENTARY PEOPLES ON THE LOWER DANUBE:
THE CUMANS AND THE “SECOND BULGARIAN EMPIRE”

Francesco Dall’Aglio

The unforeseen establishment, in 1185/6, of the so-called “Second

Bulgarian Empire”, had important consequences for the history of South-
Eastern Europe. The Byzantine Empire was forced to withdraw from the
river Danube, which had served as its northern frontier for nearly two
centuries: it would never be able to reach its banks again and had to content
itself with a tenuous control of the Thracian plains, south of the Stara
Planina range. Meanwhile, a new kingdom, that claimed to be the
continuation of the old Bulgarian state destroyed by John I Tzimiskes and
Basil II, was born, and thrived until the Ottoman conquest in the late 14th
century. While the events that brought to the creation of the Second
Bulgarian Empire are well known in their general outline, there are
unfortunately very few contemporary sources that detail its foundation and
its early years, and none of them is of Bulgarian origin. Even more
regrettably, in the past decades many controversies have arisen between
scholars working on this particular subject, to the detriment of historical
accuracy since very few of those quarrels have anything to do with medieval
history.
According to the best informed but not always reliable source, the
written by Niketas Choniates, a member of the imperial
administration,1 a revolt broke out in the winter of 1185, probably for fiscal
reasons, in the region of ,2 situated between the Danube and the
1
Niketas Choniates, Nicaetae Choniatae Historia, edited by Jan-Luis van Dieten
(Berlin/New York, 1975), 368-69; English translation by Harry J. Magoulias, O City of
Byzantium. Annals of Niketas Choniates (Detroit, 1984).
2
On , also called , and the Lower Danube region in the
eleventh and twelfth century see Paul Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan frontier. A Political
Study of the Northern Balkans, 900-1204 (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 80-116; Florin Curta,
Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250 (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 293-99, 302, 314,
and 319; , , , II ( , 2004), pp.
102-24; , , , VII-XIV
( , 1999), pp. 350-56; Alexandru Madgearu, “Dun rea în epoca bizantin (secolele
X-XII): o frontier permeabil ,” RI 10 (1999), 1-2: 41-55; Alexandru Madgearu, “The
military organization of Paradunavon,” BS 60 (1999), 2: 421-46, with an extensive
bibliography. See also Ion Barnea and tefan tefanescu, Din istoria Dobrogei. III. Bizantini,
români i bulgari la Dun rea de Jos (Bucharest, 1971); - ,
300 Francesco dall’Aglio

Stara Planina mountains. The region of Anchialos seems to have been

particularly hardly hit by a new tax levied by Isaac II, allegedly to pay the
expenses of his marriage with Margaret, the daughter of the Hungarian king
Béla III. The insurrection was led by two brothers, Peter, whose name
before the coronation was Theodore,3 and Asen, who managed to convince
the Paristrian population of the necessity to secede from the Byzantine
Empire: in a very short time the rebels were able to expel all Byzantine
forces from the region and create a new kingdom.4
The region of was inhabited by a mixed population of
Vlachs, Bulgarians, Cumans and others, appropriately called therefore
by the Byzantine authors, who were usually not concerned
with accurate description of ethnic identities.5 By contrast, such a concern

, :
, X-XII . ( , 1976).
3
That Pet r’s name was Theodore is noted in a later text, the so-called Synodikon
of tsar Boril: “Theodore, called Peter” ( . , .
, - , [ , 2010], 150, with English
translation at 352). The Synodikon, allegedly written during the reign of Boril (1207-1218) is
an extremely problematic source (see , 9-85, for an introduction),
preserved only in two manuscripts, both extensively re-elaborated at the end of the fourteenth
century. It is, however, one of the few medieval sources originating from Bulgaria: thus,
while often unreliable as a historical source, its knowledge of the names of the Bulgarians
tsars should not be disputed. See also ,“ 800
- ,” Palaeobulgarica 35 (2011), 2: 68-84.
4
The literature on the establishment of the Second Bulgarian Empire is immense,
and cannot be cited here in its entirety. Among the more general works, see ,
, , pp. 421-40; ,
(1186-1460). ( , 1994), pp. 11-42;
, , II ( , 1972),
pp. 410-83; III (1994), pp. 1-108; Phaedon Malingoudis, “Die Nachrichten des Niketas
Choniates über die Entstehung des zweiten bulgarisches Staates,” 10 (1980): 51-
147 (see also its review, with many corrections and additions: . ,
“
”, 41 (1980): 92-112); John v. A. Fine, Jr., The Late
Medieval Balkans. A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman
Conquest, (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1994), pp. 10-7, 25-9; Stephenson,
Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier, pp. 288-315 (an excellent summary, although the author
ignores Bulgarian secondary sources); Charles Brand, Byzantium Confronts the West, 1180-
1204 (Cambridge, 1968), 88-96 (very well researched, but with some chronological issues);
Curta, Southeastern Europe, pp. 357-65.
5
See Jacek Bonarek, “Le Bas Danube dans la seconde moitié du XI-ème siècle:
nouveaux états ou noveaux peuples?” Byzantina et Slavica Cracoviensia 5 (2007): 193-200;
Vasilka T pkova-Zaimova, “La population du Bas-Danube et le pouvoir byzantine (XIe-XIIe
s.),” in Actes du XVe congrès international d'études byzantines, Athènes, septembre 1976,
edited by P. Zepos (Athens, 1980), 331-39; Vasilka T pkova-Zaimova, “Les mouvements
des populations en Mésie et en Thrace entre le début du XIe et le début du XIIIe s.,” BF 7
 The interaction between nomadic and sedentary peoples 301

manifested itself with great intensity during the 20th century, when
Bulgarian and Romanian scholars, on the pretext of research, engaged in a
long, bitter and eventually pointless political and nationalistic polemic. The
Second Bulgarian Empire was presented either as an exclusively Bulgarian
creation, spurred by the resurgence of a national idea and the remembrance
of past independence, a harbinger of the “National Revival” of the 19th
century; or, on the contrary, as a state that had nothing to do with Bulgaria
since its population was composed of Vlachs, i.e., Romanians.6
This dichotomous approach is the consequence of the fact that, to
denote the rebels, the Byzantine sources used the word and not
; similarly, there is no mention of Bulgaria, only of . Latin
and French sources usually associate both names but often follow the
Byzantine usage;7 in his correspondence with Innocent III, tsar Kaloyan
(1197-1207) will style himself rex Blachorum et Bulgarorum, and will be
addressed in the same way by the pope.8 This almost exclusive mention of
the Vlach element in the Byzantine sources has, understandably, given way
to speculations about a non-Bulgarian, fully Vlach organization of the
revolt, and thus of a fully Vlach descent of its leaders. The presence of the
Vlachs in Bulgaria, especially in its north-eastern regions, is well attested
and it is certain that they were present in large numbers.9 But nowhere in the
sources is there even a hint to a parallel decrease of the Bulgarian
population, nor to a “substitution” of Bulgarians with the Vlachs. At the

(1979): 193-201. The latter two papers have been reprinted in Vasilka T pkova-Zaimova,
Byzance, la Bulgarie, les Balkans (Plovdiv, 2010), pp. 68-76 and 77-85, respectively.
6
For an unbiased exposition of the problem see especially erban Marin, “A
humanist vision regarding the Fourth Crusade and the state of the Assenides. The chronicle
of Paul Ramusio (Paulus Rhamnusius)”, Annuario. Istituto Romeno di Cultura e Ricerca
Umanistica 2 (2000): 57-60; Malingoudis, “Die Nachrichten,” pp. 89-100, 123-29. See also
, , 11-9; Fine, Late Medieval Balkans, pp. 12-3; István Vásáry, Cumans
and Tatars. Oriental Military in thePre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185-1365 (Cambridges, 2005),
pp. 18-9.
7
To quote just one of many examples, “Johannis […] rois de Blaquie et de
Bougrie”: Geoffroi de Villehardouin, La conquête de Constantinople, ed. Edmond Faral, I
(Paris, 1961), pp. 206-07. However, in the same paragraph the chronicler states that Kalojan
was “uns Blas.”
8
See for instance Die Register Innocenz’ III, 6. Pontifikatsjahr, 1203/1204: Texte
und Indices, edited by Othmar Hageneder, John C. Moore, and Andrea Sommerlechner
(Vienna, 1995), pp. 233-35.
9
Mathias Gyóni, “Le nom de dans l’Alexiade d’Anne Comnène,” BZ 44
(1951): 241-52; Mathias Gyóni, “La transhumance des Vlaques Balcaniques au Moyen Age,”
BS 12 (1951): 29-42; Eugen St nescu, “La population vlaque de l’Empire Byzantin au XIe-
XIIIe siècle,” BF 7 (1979): 23-53; Petre . N sturel, “Les Valaques balkaniques aux Xe-XIIIe
siècles. Mouvements de population et colonisation dans la Romanie grecque et latine,” BF 7
(1979): 89-112; , , , pp. 170-74; Curta,
Southeastern Europe, pp. 280-82, 316-17, and 354-65.
302 Francesco dall’Aglio

same time, it seems improbable that only the Vlachs organized the revolt
and participated in it, while Bulgarians remained on the sides. In his first
mention of the revolt, Choniates states that it began among “the barbarians
of mount Haemus, once called Mysians and now known as Vlachs.”10 From
the Mysians of old, the chronicler moved directly to the contemporary
Vlachs: Bulgarians are not mentioned at all, not only in the present but not
even in the past, as if they had never existed.
The most logical explanation for this usage is that Choniates called
the rebels not to underline an absence of Bulgarians in their ranks or
in that region, but because the cradle of the uprising was the theme of
, once part of the Roman province of Moesia inferior ( , in
Greek), whose borders stretched from the range (nowadays Stara
Planina) to the Danube, and not the theme , located much farther
to west.11 His words, then, do not refer to a particular ethnic group, but the
whole population that inhabited the region, of which the Vlachs were a
prominent part. This interpretation could also explain the seemingly
antiquarian use of the term as a synonym for , but not for
. Choniates knew very well both ancient history and
contemporary events, and was preoccupied, with good reasons, with a
resurgence of Bulgaria: he states that the goals of the rebels were “the
freedom of the Bulgarian and Vlach people”12 and “to reunite the kingdom
of the Mysians and of the Bulgarians, as it was in the past”13 – that is, to
extend the revolt from ( ) to the lands that were part of the
Bulgarian theme, restoring the territory of early medieval Bulgaria. His
identification of with the western regions of the old (and future)
Bulgarian kingdom, and of / with the Lower Danube region, is
evident from the analysis of a few passages in which the term Bulgaria (or
Bulgarian) is attested only for places outside . The fortress of
Prosakon, in Macedonia, was not adequately fortified because the
10
Choniates, Historia, ed. Dieten, 368 (‘ ,
, ’); all English translation of
the passages cited are mine. These are obviously not the Mysians of Asia Minor.
11
This hypothesis has obviously been favoured by Bulgarian historiography: see
especially , , pp. 12-4; , “
III . , ,”
“ . ”. .- . . 38 (1942), 3: 86. According to its stronger
detractor, Nicolae B nescu, Un problème d’histoire médiévale. Création et caractère du
second empire bulgare (Bucharest, 1943), pp. 77-8, this hypothesis is “childish”: but the
author does not explain convincingly his point of view. On the theme of , see
, , , pp. 343-50.
12
Choniates, Historia, ed. Dieten, 371 (“
”).
13
Choniates, Historia, ed. Dieten, 374 (“
, ”).
 The interaction between nomadic and sedentary peoples 303

Byzantines “disdained the Bulgarians”;14 in 1195, “while the emperor was

in the East, they [the ] attacked the Bulgarian themes around
Serres.”15 In reverse, when Isaac II attacked the rebels in 1186, he marched
across ,16 and Asen returned after the victorious
17
campaigns in Macedonia. The same usage may be found in the Latin
sources of the Third Crusade, which consistently identify Bulgaria with the
region laying between the Hungarian border and Belgrade, covered with
deep woods called silva Bulgarica;18 according to the Historia
Peregrinorum, once the crusaders crossed the river Sava they entered “in
finibus regni Grecie, id est in Bulgaria.”19
The use of the term (and not, for instance, ) to
identify the whole population of the region may also illuminate some other
aspects. Choniates often employs scornful or derogatory expressions while
making reference to the enemies of the Empire. In this perspective,
associating the rebels to a semi-barbaric population, at least in the eye of the
Byzantines, would undermine the authority of their leaders and the
legitimacy of their claims.
Luckily, it seems that the acrid bickering that marred a consistent
part of the scholarship produced in Southeastern Europe during the age of
nationalism and, perhaps not surprisingly, during the age of socialism, is a
relic of the past. Tracing the ethnic background, the “blood” of the leaders
of the revolt and of their followers is no longer a scholarly concern. It seems
reasonable that, when using the word , Choniates refers to the
inhabitants of as a distinct population whose affiliation with the
past Bulgarian kingdom, regardless of the ethnic origins of its single
inhabitants, had been diluted by 150 years of intermingling and by the
forging of new ties of allegiance and identity: the memory, or maybe the
invention of the Bulgarian identity,20 served probably more as a rallying cry

14
Choniates, Historia, ed. Dieten, 502 (“ ”).
15
Choniates, Historia, ed. Dieten, 465.
16
Choniates, Historia, ed. Dieten, 373.
17
Choniates, Historia, ed. Dieten, 468.
18
See for instance “Historia de expeditione Friderici imperatoris”, in Quellen zur
Geschichte des Kreuzzuges Kaiser Friedrich I, edited by Anton Chroust, MGH SRG 5
(Berlin, 1928), p. 28; English translation, The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa. The History
of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick and Related Texts, translated by Graham Loud
(Farnham, 2010). See also Odo of Deuil’s remark that “where Bulgaria begins there is a
fortress that the Bulgarians call Belgrad” (Odonis de Deogilo Liber de via sancti sepulchri,
edited by Georg Waitz, MGH SS 26 [Hannover, 1882], p. 62). For more examples, see
, ( , 2004),
pp. 98-100.
19
“Historia Peregrinorum,” in Quellen, p. 135.
20
When using the term invention I do not mean either forgery or fabrication. See
Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities (London, 1983).
304 Francesco dall’Aglio

rather than as an actual statement of ethnicity. We may safely assume that

all the populations that lived in the region participated in the revolt, feeling
a bond towards each other, and against the Byzantine Empire, that was not
necessarily linked to the memory of early medieval Bulgaria but was rather
the product of decades of common interests and associations at all levels.
On the other hand, the insistence on creating a continuity with early
medieval Bulgaria may also mean that, at least in certain circles, ethnic or
political, this allegiance was still felt, or could be a significant motivation
for undertaking such a daunting task; at least a part of the local nobility
must have preserved some kind of memory, or myth, of past Bulgarian
history.
The population of was surely remarkable, as the region
itself. In the second half of the twelfth century this area, once one of the
most strategic borderlands of the Empire, was becoming an almost forgotten
province. The nomadic populations that had terrified the Balkans in the past
centuries had been either vanquished and assimilated, as in the case of the
Pechenegs, or co-opted as trade partners and auxiliaries, as in the case the
Cumans, although their allegiance was always unstable. The network of
fortresses that had previously dotted the Danube, well maintained and well
garrisoned by the central administration, was in gradual disarray, but this
lack of interest was the consequence of fewer raids coming from the north,
and not a sign of decadence. Byzantine military activity on the Danube
gradually moved westwards, in a series of campaigns directed against
Hungary that drew off manpower and resources, making a
relatively untroubled region.
The ethnic make-up of the area was extremely diversified: we do
not know whether the members of the most numerous communities, Vlachs
and Bulgarians, felt any kind of ethnic allegiance towards their fellows or, if
they did, to what extent. There were certainly great differences among them,
but overall their relations appeared to have been fairly good: and it would
not have been possible otherwise, because each population, with its
distinctive economic and social organization, needed the cooperation of the
others. We lack any estimate of the number of inhabitants in , let
alone of their ethnic distinctions: but we may be sure that, overall, the
population presented an extraordinary mixture of sedentary and nomadic
traits, due to its peculiar geographic position and to the various ethnic
groups that inhabited it. We may infer that the Bulgarians, being the only
fully sedentary people, were primarily concerned with agriculture and lived
in villages and towns, where they formed the majority of the population,
while the Vlachs were pastoralists, with a semi-nomadic lifestyle functional
to the necessities of moving their herds between summer and winter
pastures. They too, however, resided in villages, and their interactions with
 The interaction between nomadic and sedentary peoples 305

the Bulgarians had to be significant and continuous. Of course, the

economic activities were not strictly defined along ethnic lines: Vlachs
could possess land and live in towns, and Bulgarians could tend flocks and
follow their transhumance.
The Cumans added an exotic flair to this already peculiar mixture:
horse breeders, traders of foreign goods, army auxiliaries and, occasionally,
plunderers, their lifestyle was quite different from that of the Vlachs and of
the Bulgarians, but not alien to them as it was to the Byzantines.21 In 1185,
the Cumans were no newcomers to . Moving south from the
“Cuman steppe” stretching from the Caspian to the Black Sea, they
approached the Danube region in the second half of the 11th century and
became a constant presence, and often a constant threat. At the end of the
11th century we find them allied to the Pechenegs, raiding the Byzantine
territories south of the Danube; their first recorded incursion took place in
1078.22 But their allegiances were quite variable: they also allied with the
Byzantines against the Pechenegs, such as at the battle of Levunion (29
April 1091), when 40,000 Cuman horsemen helped the army of Emperor
Alexios.23 Then again, soon after the battle they raided Thrace, with the
assistance of the Vlachs; in 1114 the region of Vidin was ravaged, and
Thrace again in 1122 and 1148.24 However, the Cumans did not only engage
in plunder and their interactions with the sedentary, or quasi-sedentary
people living in become increasingly peaceful; the Cumans
were interested in acquiring goods coming from Byzantium and, at the same
time, could provide excellent livestock, especially horses, and commodities

21
For a primer on Cuman history and civilization, especially in its connections to
Southeastern Europe, see Victor Spinei, The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the
Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century (Leiden, 2009);
, . ( , 2009); ,
: ( , 2006); István Vásáry, Cumans and
Tatars, pp. 4-68; Peter B. Golden, “The Cumans,” in The Cambridge History of early Inner
Asia, edited by Denis Sinor (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 277-84; Peter B. Golden, “The Quip aks
of medieval Eurasia: an example of stateless adaptation in the steppes,” in Rulers From the
Steppe: State Formation on the Eurasian Periphery, edited by Gary Seaman and Daniel
Marks (Los Angeles, 1991), pp. 132-57; Petre Diaconu, Les Coumans au Bas-Danube aux
XIe et XIIe siècles (Bucharest, 1978); András Pálóczi-Horváth, Pechenegs, Cumans, Iasians:
Steppe Peoples in Medieval Hungary (Budapest, 1989); Curta, Southeastern Europe, pp. 311-
17. For a bibliography on the military alliance between the Cumans and the second Bulgarian
kingdom see below, note 34.
22
Curta, Southeastern Europe, 306.
23
Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier, p. 103; Curta, Southeastern Europe,
pp. 301-2.
24
Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier, 106-07; Curta, Southeastern Europe,
pp. 312-14.
306 Francesco dall’Aglio

traded across the steppe lands. Gradually, their presence south of the
Danube became another tile in the mosaic of ethnic groups in the region.
The goods produced in were well diversified and were
not only traded locally, but were also exported to the profitable markets of
Constantinople. The relative stability allowed, over time, the emergence of a
society in which traditional ethnic bonds gradually dissolved, creating a new
identity. This “new” population of farmers and breeders, with strong ties to
the plains on the northern bank of the Danube and to the faraway steppes,
and maybe with a noble class of landowners who had not entirely forgotten
the old Bulgarian splendour, had apparently no reasons to plot an uprising
and could enjoy the safety and the trade opportunities granted by the
Empire. But this situation did not last long: in the last decades of the twelfth
century the Byzantine decline seemed inevitable, and brought along a
decrease of trade, an increase of taxes and political instability. The
Paristrians were forced to look for a solution and the most extreme one,
secession, was chosen. Questioning the ethnicity of its proponents is
pointless. The social and economic integration of Vlachs and Bulgarians
was so great that none of them could have acted alone against the Empire.
The idea of seceding from the Empire and creating a new polity had
tremendous consequences for all the inhabitants of ; it would be
inconceivable for only one ethnic group to be involved in the effort, without
the consent and the active support of the others, a further proof of the
necessity of discarding the “all Bulgarian” or “all Vlach” approach to the
matter.
The Cumans did not participate in the first stage of the insurrection,
at least not those living north of the Danube. The revolt seems to have
originated in an urban environment, a context in which Cuman presence was
probably very scarce. Peter and Asen did manage to rally up the population
using powerful identity symbols, both religious and political, to which the
Cumans were alien. To incite their countryman, who at first appeared
reluctant, the brothers built a church dedicated to St. Demetrius, brought
there some seers “possessed by demons,” as Choniates calls them, both
Vlach and Bulgarian,25 and had them prophesy that God was well disposed
towards the intentions of freedom “of the Bulgarian and of the Vlach
people,”26 that the same St. Demetrius had fled Thessaloniki and the
Byzantines to help them, and that it was time to take arms against the
Byzantines and kill them mercilessly, without taking prisoners. The church

25
“ ”: Choniates, Historia, ed. Dieten, 371. B nescu, Un
problème, pp. 59-60, translates with “sex”, maintaining that only Vlachs (of both
sexes) were involved in this prophesying: but since just a few lines below Choniates
explicitly mentions both Bulgarians and Vlachs, his interpretation cannot be accepted.
26
See above, note 12.
 The interaction between nomadic and sedentary peoples 307

built by Peter and Asen is traditionally identified with the St. Demetrius
Chapel in T rnovo.27 Choniates does not mention the place in which the
chapel was built but, given the importance that T rnovo will assume almost
immediately, this identification is plausible.
The first actions of Peter and Asen show an evident intention to
represent themselves as heirs of the old Bulgarian political tradition, and to
represent the new state as the natural continuation of the first Bulgarian
kingdom destroyed in the early 11th century. The first, and more important,
of these allusions is the name chosen by Theodore upon his coronation,
Peter, no doubt in reference to tsar Peter I (927-969), son of the great
Symeon, who, in the collective memory of the population, possessed already
the status of a mythical figure. Under his reign, Bulgaria had enjoyed a long
period of peace and prosperity, although marred at the very end by the Rus’
invasion prompted by the Byzantine emperor Nikephoros II Phokas. Peter’s
reputation was further enhanced by his canonization, following his
retirement and death in a monastery. In the 11th and 12th century his virtues,
along with those of his predecessors, had been extolled in a series of
apocryphal books that had transfigured the first Bulgarian kingdom in an
age of unparalleled splendour.28 Choosing the name of the last glorious ruler
of Bulgaria was a clear sign of the political ambitions of the Asenids, and an
attempt at rallying as much support as possible from the population. After
being crowned with a golden crown, Peter donned scarlet boots. This, far
from being just an attempt at imitating Byzantine political customs, as
Choniates, in a paragraph somewhat dismissive of Pet r’s actions and
dignity, leads his audience to believe, was another purposeful reference to
the old Bulgarian kingdom and to its restoration. In 971 John I Tzimiskes
had captured tsar Boris II, Peter’s son and successor, brought him to
Constantinople and divested him of the royal symbols of Bulgaria- a golden
crown, a linen tiara, and a pair of scarlet boots.29 Again, Peter/Theodore’s
actions are proof of a definite political design, and the same can be said for

27
See for instance , , II, pp. 440-41; Malingoudis,
“Nachrichten”, p. 75.
28
On the attempt of the Asenids to portray themselves as the successors of the first
Bulgarian kingdom, see ,
, VII-XIV ( , 2011), pp. 217-26; Christo Kolarov and Yordan Andreev,
“Certaines questions ayant trait aux manifestations de continuité d’idées en Bulgarie
médiévale au des XII-XIV siècles,” Études Historiques 9 (1979): 77-97. On the cult of Peter
I, see , . . . -
( , 2004), pp. 17-42.
29
See John Skylitzes, Synopsis Historion, edited by Hans Thurn (Berlin, 1973), p.
310; English translation in John Skylitzes. A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811-1057,
translated by John Wortley (Cambridge, 2010).
308 Francesco dall’Aglio

the target of the first ambitious military campaign, Preslav, the ancient
Bulgarian capital.
But the walls of Preslav proved too difficult to besiege. The rebels’
army plundered, instead, the regions south of the Stara Planina taking away
cattle and prisoners. The fact that Peter was styling himself an independent
king, and that his army was capable of launching raids in the Thracian
plains, persuaded Isaac II to take action, moving against him in the spring of
1186. The Byzantine army managed to crush the resistance with no
particular difficulties, and Peter and Asen fled across the Danube, seeking
Cuman help. Isaac, satisfied with his victory, returned home and did not
bother to reinforce the garrisons on the river, a mistake that would prove
fatal.
Peter and Asen had, clearly, very good connections with the
Cumans. On that ground, it has been argued that the brothers were of
Cuman descent.30 But, although Choniates is, as we have seen, quite vague
in his ethnonyms, he is always very careful in distinguishing between
and , or rather , as he prefers to call them. It is of
course possible that Peter and Asen had Cuman blood in their veins; this
would be hardly surprising, especially if we take into consideration the
peculiar ethnic composition of , where so many different ethnic
groups had been living together for a long time. But, however vague his
definition of Vlachs may be, Choniates always maintains that the Asenids
were of Vlach, not Cuman descent. And speaking of Kaloyan, their younger
brother who would rule from 1197 to 1207, and marry a Cuman princess,
another Byzantine chronicler, Georgios Akropolites, states that he had “tied
himself to the Scythian people and shared kinship with them, and having
become acquainted with a behaviour more savage by nature, took delight in
killing the Romans.”31 This strongly suggests that those habits belonged to a
different people and had been transmitted to him by his allies. Of course,
30
, “ ”, 4/4
(1928): 1-42; , , II, p. 427; ,“
, 1185 .,”
45 (1933): 8-48. Both Zlatarski and Mutaf iev believe that the Asenids’ original
Cuman blood had, by 1185, become Bulgarian: this theory had actually been conceived to
withstand the attacks of Romanian historiography, invalidating the Vlach argument. See also
,
( , 1981), 50, and Malingoudis, “Nachrichten”, pp. 85-7. On the various conjectures
about the ethnicity of the Asenids, see , , pp. 18-9. According to the
most extreme theory, the Asenids’ origins were exclusively Cuman. Omeljan Pritsak “The
Polovcians and Rus,” AEMA 2 (1982): 373 maintained that the Cumans led the uprising, but
also that all the subsequent Bulgarian dynasties until the Ottoman conquest were of Cuman
origin.
31
Georgii Acropolitae Opera, edited by August Heisenberg and Peter Wirth
(Stuttgart, 1978), p. 24.
 The interaction between nomadic and sedentary peoples 309

being a barbarian himself, acquiring such inhuman customs must have come
easily.
According to an oration delivered by Choniates at the imperial
court, Peter promised the Cumans an easy campaign: the emperor, he told
them, would return to Constantinople and leave in just a few
garrisons that could be easily overrun. The Cumans accepted the proposal,
enticed by the prospect of rich plunder.32 Choniates was more interested in
highlighting Isaac’s bad decisions than relating the actual truth, and it is
obvious that the speech was made up long after the events, following the
classical Greek historiographical tradition. His own narration is inconsistent:
while in the oration the alliance is negotiated by Peter, in his chronicle the
leading role is played by Asen.33 But the emphasis that he put on the
importance of this alliance is justified. The Cuman assistance would prove
invaluable, not only during the establishment of the Second Bulgarian
Empire but also in the following decades, and the Cuman contingents of
light cavalry would play a decisive role in almost every military campaign.34
We have no elements that can help us understand the terms of the
agreement. However, given the circumstances, we must necessarily
conclude that more than a formal alliance between two states, which
Bulgaria and the Cumans were not, it was probably a personal alliance
between the Asenides and some Cuman chieftains. The Bulgarians gained a
formidable army to fight at their side, while the Cumans had access to the
wealth of Thrace and Macedonia, maintaining the right to leave in the
summer, to tend their flocks, or whenever their lands were menaced.
The presence of the Cuman warriors strengthened considerably the
Bulgarian army, which was able to re-establish its presence in
and launch a series of successful raids outside that region. The raids were
aimed at expanding the boundaries of the territory controlled by the Asenids
and, perhaps more urgently, at getting plunder for the Cumans and at
persuading the Vlacho-Bulgarian population and nobility: the more

32
Niketas Choniates, Nicetae Choniatae Orationes et Epistulae, edited by Jan-Luis
van Dieten (Berlin/New York, 1972), pp. 7-8.
33
Choniates, Historia, ed. Dieten, p. 374.
34
On the military alliance between Bulgarians and Cumans, see especially
, “ (XI-XIV .),” 61
(2005), 5-6: 3-25; , “
1186-1207 ,”
58 (1939): 203-11; ,“
. (1186-1241 .),”
. . . 27 (1989), 3: 9-59;
Francesco Dall’Aglio, “The military alliance between the Cumans and Bulgaria from the
establishment of the second Bulgarian kingdom to the Mongol invasion,” AEMA 16 (2008-
2009): 29-54.
310 Francesco dall’Aglio

successful the raids, the more followers to be gained. In the early years of
the insurrection, the only strategic aim seems to have been reaching and
securing the “natural” frontiers of : the Danube, safe from
Cumans incursions; the Black Sea, although important strongholds like
Varna remained in Byzantine hands; and the mountain passes across the
Stara Planina. Any other goal would have been impossible to pursue: but
during the early 1190s the Byzantine Empire was in such a state of disarray
that an expansion beyond those boundaries, especially into Macedonia and
the region of Niš and Brani evo, was successfully achieved. The Cumans
participated in those campaigns, always giving an important contribution
and, arguably, receiving a fair share of the spoils. They were not just an
important military asset: they were also, with all probability, the main
support available to the royal family in its struggle to safeguard its power
against local aristocrats.35 Although relying heavily on a “nationalist”
rhetoric, the Second Bulgarian Empire was menaced by centrifugal
tendencies, if not from the beginning at least from the mid-1190s, when the
success of the revolt had been secured and new political groups began to
voice their discontent. In 1196 Asen was killed by a nobleman, Ivanko, who
afterwards fled to Byzantium. The same fate befell Peter on the following
year, and the third brother, Kaloyan, in 1207, while he was besieging
Thessaloniki.
This series of murders, a clear sign of a long-term opposition to the
Asenids, has given rise to many speculations about the identity and
motivations of the dissidents. According to Choniates, one of the main
arguments of Ivanko and of his supporters was that, should their plan
succeed, they would rule Bulgaria more justly and rightfully, without
always resorting to sword and rage as Asen had done. This may be a
reference to an autocratic rule based on the alliance with the Cumans.36 A
different interpretation has been advanced by Vasil Zlatarski, who
postulated instead the existence of a “Cuman party,” dissatisfied with
Asen’s politics. According to his theory, both the Asenids and the Bulgarian
nobility shared the same interests and had the same goal, i.e., the
“liberation” of Bulgaria from the Byzantine yoke, and no disagreements
ever arose between them. Thus, the culprits cannot be sought within the
Bulgarian aristocracy but within the ranks of the Cuman allies.37

35
According to Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan frontier, p. 305, “[Asen’s] power
rested not only with his ability to secure and distribute booty […], but also to intimidate the
natives of Trnovo and its environs. His intimate association with the Cumans must have
contributed to this “reign of terror,” if that is what it was”.
36
Choniates, Historia, ed. Dieten, p. 470.
37
, , III, pp. 97-100. For a complete examination of the idea of
a “Cuman party” in Bulgarian history and historiography, see ,“
 The interaction between nomadic and sedentary peoples 311

Unfortunately, this is one of the occasions in which Zlatarski’s excellent

analysis has been derailed by his enthusiastic nationalism. Far from being a
destabilising element pursuing an autonomous agenda, the Cumans were
Peter and Asen’s most fervent supporters, since the alliance with the
Bulgarian royal family granted booty and trade opportunities. Moreover, the
Cumans remained loyal to the Asenids after the death of Asen, Peter and
Kaloyan: this would hardly be consistent with their alleged role in the
murders.
Zlatarski has, however, touched on a very interesting problem.
What was the effective presence of the Cuman aristocracy in the political
life of the Second Bulgarian Empire? Were they interested in acquiring
power over Bulgaria, or were they satisfied with the booty gained during the
campaigns? Again, we cannot answer this question easily, but a look at the
events following the death of Kaloyan may offer some clues. To gain
legitimacy as tsar, Boril married Kaloyan’s widow who, as we have
previously seen, was a Cuman, thus confirming the alliance. Boril’s
accession to the throne had not been easy: his authority had been openly
challenged by other members of the family, Strets and Slav, who seceded
from Bulgaria claiming the throne for themselves.38 Boril needed all the
help he could gather, and again the Cumans stepped in as the most useful
ally. After securing their help, he decided to continue Kaloyan’s anti-Latin
policies and invaded Thrace, but was defeated in a clash near Philippopolis
on August 1st, 1208, and had no other choice but to establish friendly
relations with the Latin Empire of Constantinople, thus ceasing all
hostilities.
With all probability, this truce brought a radical a change in the
relationship between Bulgaria and the Cumans, who could no longer profit
from the plundering raids in Thrace. In 1211 or 1213, three Cuman
chieftains invaded Bulgaria, sacking Vidin and its environs, and were
repelled with much difficulty, and with Hungarian assistance.39 Boril’s

- (1185 .- XIV
.),” 7 (1990), 1: 16-26. About the death of Kaloyan and the alleged
role of the Cumans, see Francesco Dall’Aglio, “The Bulgarian siege of Thessaloniki in 1207:
between history and hagiography,” Eurasian Studies 1 (2002), 2: 278-80; L ezar Krastev,
“Les Miracles de Saint Démètre de Thessalonique et la participation d’Alains et de Coumans
au siège de Thessalonique en 1207,” EB 3-4 (1997): 125-29.
38
On Boril’s kingdom, see especially , , pp. 69-77;
- , (1204-1261) ( , 1985), pp.
80-113; ,“ ,” 5-6 (2005):
83-98.
39
, , III, pp. 304-6; Vásáry, Cumans and Tatars, pp. 58-60;
, “ ,” 20; , “ ,” p. 19; Curta,
Southeastern Europe, p. 385.
312 Francesco dall’Aglio

marriage with a niece of Emperor Henry in 1213 probably exacerbated the

tensions between Bulgaria and the Cumans, who in 1218 allowed John Asen
II, the young son of Asen, safe passage through their lands for his campaign
against Boril. It seems reasonable to surmise that John Asen II renewed the
traditional alliance, but his friendly relations with the Latins reduced
drastically the opportunities for the Cumans to be employed in his army. To
give just one example, at the decisive battle of Klokotnitsa in 1230, John
Asen fielded less than one thousand Cumans against the army of the despot
of Epirus Theodore Angelos.40 The Cumans continued to serve in the
Bulgarian army, but their numbers were constantly dwindling. The main
reason for that, however, was not a deterioration of the relations with
Bulgaria, but the increasing involvement of the Cumans in the disputes
between the Rus’ principalities ands, after the battle on the Kalka River in
1223, in the desperate struggle against the Mongols that were threatening
their lands and that, eventually, would destroy their confederation. The
definitive settlement of the Cumans in Hungary would put an end to their
expansion and on their alliance with Bulgaria:41 ironically, it would be the
Latins of Constantinople and the most pious crusader king of France, Louis
IX, who would last employ their assistance help in their last struggle for
Constantinople and Outremer.42

40
Akropolites, Opera, p. 42.
41
On the Cuman settlement in Hungary and on their Christianization see especially
Victor Spinei, “The Cuman Bishopric - genesis and evolution,” in The Other Europe in the
Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans, edited by Florin Curta (Leiden, 2008),
pp. 413-56; Curta, Southeastern Europe, pp. 406-08.
42
See Dennis Sinor, “The Mongols and Western Europe,” in Inner Asia, ed. Sinor,
pp. 522-26; Vásáry, Cumans and Tatars, p. 66; Jean de Joinville, “Histoire de Saint Louis,” in
Historiens et Chroniqueurs du Moyen Âge, edited by Albert Pauphilet (Paris, 1963), pp. 311-
2. On the fate of the Cumans after the Mongol onslaught, see Dimitri Korobeinikov, “A
Broken mirror: the Kipçak world in the thirteenth Century,” in The Other Europe in the
Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans, edited by Florin Curta (Leiden, 2008),
pp. 379-412.